With the continuing surplus and the difficulties Congress seems to be having agreeing on how to proceed this year, two questions keep popping up over and over: Should the House and Senate even try to adopt a fiscal 2001 budget resolution, and will it make any difference if they don't?
Legally, Congress has no choice but to pass a fiscal 2001 budget resolution. The House and Senate are required by the Congressional Budget Act to adopt a budget resolution and, because all members of Congress take an oath to uphold the laws of the land, they seemingly have to do so.
However, there is no legal penalty if Congress fails to comply with the budget resolution requirement. When the Congressional Budget Act was passed in 1974 the assumption was that compliance would not be much of a question. And we know from what happened after the House and Senate failed to agree on the 1999 budget resolution conference report that, at least in the current environment where having no budget deal is considered acceptable, there is little or no political penalty either.
But legalities and politics aside, not adopting a budget resolution conference report will make the rest of this year's debate far more difficult for Congress. Without it, there will be no framework for the decisions that still have to be made. That, after all, was the original reason for budget resolutions-to give Congress the opportunity to put all spending and revenues together in one place and make decisions for the rest of the year when the priorities are implemented in other legislation.
This means that if Congress fails to adopt a budget resolution this year, it will give the White House an additional advantage in a debate where the president already holds all of the high cards. Without a budget resolution there will be no agreement among House and Senate Republicans about the priorities they want to pursue, nor will there be an agreed-upon plan for negotiating with the administration on appropriations decisions. This will make it much harder for the leadership to get much out of the negotiations and much easier for the president to put together winning coalitions on a bill-by-bill basis.
It will also probably lengthen the budget process somewhat. Not having budget resolution will mean that when the House and Senate should be focusing solely on the fiscal 2001 appropriations, there could still be an effort by some members to get a tax or entitlement change enacted. That is a decision that should be made in the budget resolution, since it would shape the legislative agenda for the rest of the year.
No budget resolution would also mean that the priorities that should be agreed upon first will instead have to be thrashed out as each bill is debated. Instead of a position that represents the party, it will be every representative and senator for themselves.
The experience with the 1999 budget process shows that we can muddle through without a budget resolution, but that was said to be a one-time aberration. To make certain that would be the case, congressional leaders last year worked hard to erase the memory of the first time a budget resolution conference report was not adopted by making sure that the next year's resolution-fiscal 2000-not only was adopted but done so by the April 15 statutory deadline.
If there is no budget resolution again this year, however, it mean that Congress will have failed two of the past three years-and that the "aberration" might really have been the beginning of a trend.
It will also bring back many of the concerns that were typical of the years immediately after the Congressional Budget Act was adopted and the budget committees needed direct and substantial involvement by the leadership to get budget resolutions adopted. At that time the budget committees thought reconciliation was too risky to be tried because a failed bill would indicate little support for the budget process that had just been enacted.
That, perhaps, is the ultimate reason Congress should adopt a fiscal 2001 budget resolution. Without it-and the commitment to a budget process that approval would imply-it is hard to see how these decisions will not be anything but much harder in the future.
Question of the Week
Last Week's Question. "What is the limit on the number of budget resolutions that Congress can adopt each year?" The answer is that there is no limit. The initial version of the Congressional Budget Act required Congress to pass two each year and in some years the second resolution was modified further, essentially a third budget resolution. The requirement for a two budget resolution has since been eliminated, but Congress can always revise an existing budget resolution by adopting a new one. The winner of the all new "I Won A 2000 Budget Battle" T-shirt, who was selected at random from all of the correct responses, is Bill Weber, who works as the tax/budget legislative assistant for Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
This Week's Question. The Smithsonian Institution will be opening a number of new museums in the coming years celebrating particular aspects of American history, life and culture. If there were to be a national museum about the history and culture of the federal budget, what should it be called? Send your response to scollender@nationaljournal.com by 5 p.m. EST on Saturday, March 4, and you could win your own "I Won A 2000 Budget Battle" T-shirt to wear while watching the early rounds of this year's NCAA basketball championship.